edit_graph_live

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: in-place editing (id unchanged), auto-backup to a rolling graph, open editors receive external_update, bot re-reads from DB, and the critical warning that PUT does not validate. This goes beyond simple mutation and covers side effects and safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact but information-dense. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, non-behavior, effects, usage context, and validation warning. It is well-structured with emphasis markers (РЕКОМЕНДОВАННЫЙ, ВАЖНО) and no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (live editing, backup, validation concerns), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, effects on open editors and the bot, when to use, and prerequisites. It also references sibling tools and validation workflow, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is low (25% with only backup and graphFile having descriptions). The description adds meaning for graphId (targets the existing graph that is edited in place) and backup (auto-backup behavior), but does not elaborate on other parameters like name, edges, nodes, graph, canvasMeta. While the high-level context helps, it does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it edits an existing (live) graph in place on the same graphId, with auto-backup, and explicitly distinguishes itself from cloning/publishing. The verb 'edit' and resource 'live graph' are specific and differentiate it from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Используй ВМЕСТО clone+publish, когда нужно поправить сценарий, который уже открыт/в проде.' It also states what it does NOT do (no clone, no new active graph) and gives a validation precondition (run validate.mjs and dry_run).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.